For all the people saying they enjoyed the single player game but they're not even going to play this game: it's going to be F2P why wouldn't you at least give it a shot? I try tons of F2P games just out of boredom. I never stick around with any of them and never spend any money, but if it's F2P why not? Especially since the single player game was awesome.
I can't speak for others, but I guess I am just not that bored. I've only got so much time, money isn't the only finite resource being used here. I'd rather play something I really, truly enjoy with people I love playing with. So far, and it's relatively early still, I am not liking what I am hearing on this front, and neither are the other peeps I game with.
I can see that. But even if it simply amounted to a single player game with multiplayer functionality, a Torchlight 2 if you will since none of the original content itself would be rehashed from the first game according to what they've said so far, I think it would be worth my time.
I can see that. But even if it simply amounted to a single player game with multiplayer functionality, a Torchlight 2 if you will since none of the original content itself would be rehashed from the first game according to what they've said so far, I think it would be worth my time.
Which of course, is fine for you. And if that is what you want, and that is what they deliver, that's great. Thing is, when we go after an MMO, it's for the MMO experience, the whole package, not a singleplayer game with a multiplayer tacked onto it. I wouldn't even appreciate that IF it were just sold as a standalone game and not an MMO.
I have so many games I enjoy on a single-player level, so many on a multiplayer level and one maybe two MMOs at any given time holding my interest. Torchlight MMO as described isn't going to satify my singleplayer want as there are richer experiences to be had with less hassles (F2P solo not appealing to me at all), there are games designed for a multiplayer experience from the ground up this Torchlight MMO wouldn't compare real well too and there are MMOs I am hoping that will bring me that MMO flavor that even standalone mulitplayers can't deliver.
I am not seeing their idea match any of these niches real well for me. People who enjoy the F2P experience plus the ability to jump around from F2P game to F2P game because the costs can be nil, especially if you don't stick around, might love this setup. What they plan on offering the rest of us is, well we'll just have to see. It's just not appealing right now to me.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
This is great news for me. Torchlight is my current favorite single player and I've been looking forward to the multiplayer version for a long time.
I'm also glad they are making the game soloable as well as having a group mode. I like the idea of having decent rewards no matter if I'm with my family and friends or by myself.
People get hung up on semantics. If Torchlight allows a lot of people on the server at once then it's MMO enough for me. Isn't that why we called them MMOs in the first place? Adding MMO to the title just lets people know they can all log on to the server and meet up. Why does it need to have a more complicated definition?
Bit of mixed info coming from this, article says " hitting store shelves this Thursday" yet up top it says (est.rel 2011), so which is it? :P
Either way, I've been wanting to try this since I heard about the mmo version shortly after buying the orignal torchlight, but seeing how PWE will be controlling the cashshop it leaves me with little faith.. they really couldn't have chosen a worse "f2p" company to handle this.
With PWE games it does pay to start as soon as a game is available though, since overtime the cashshop's become more and more important, and the community also inflates market/cashshop prices higher and higher as time goes on, eventually making it impossible to afford good gear and cashshop currency/items with in-game gold.
So to actually have any ammount FREE fun at all you really need to play while a game is still fresh/new, and if you plan on sticking around for awhile, my suggestion is to buy all the cashshop currency you can while it is cheap (with in-game gold), save it for 4-6months, then sell once prices stabilize at around 400k/100ZEN (seems to be the standard leveling off point).
Unfortunatly that is about the only way it's possible to play FREE, stay on par with the cashshop crowds, have a useful character and still be a relevant part of the community..
This is great news for me. Torchlight is my current favorite single player and I've been looking forward to the multiplayer version for a long time.
I'm also glad they are making the game soloable as well as having a group mode. I like the idea of having decent rewards no matter if I'm with my family and friends or by myself.
People get hung up on semantics. If Torchlight allows a lot of people on the server at once then it's MMO enough for me. Isn't that why we called them MMOs in the first place? Adding MMO to the title just lets people know they can all log on to the server and meet up. Why does it need to have a more complicated definition?
There was this company that tried this and is gone after trying to tack on a weak multiplayer experience onto an single-player game and then try to get an MMO price for it. Monte Cristo and the game was called Cities XL. Cities XL went down in record time, and Monte Cristo is closed down. It's not getting "hung up on semantics" when you are trying to decide, are they making an MMO or just trying to cash in on MMO pricing without the MMO. It's been done before.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
This is great news for me. Torchlight is my current favorite single player and I've been looking forward to the multiplayer version for a long time.
I'm also glad they are making the game soloable as well as having a group mode. I like the idea of having decent rewards no matter if I'm with my family and friends or by myself.
People get hung up on semantics. If Torchlight allows a lot of people on the server at once then it's MMO enough for me. Isn't that why we called them MMOs in the first place? Adding MMO to the title just lets people know they can all log on to the server and meet up. Why does it need to have a more complicated definition?
There was this company that tried this and is gone after trying to tack on a weak multiplayer experience onto an single-player game and then try to get an MMO price for it. Monte Cristo and the game was called Cities XL. Cities XL went down in record time, and Monte Cristo is closed down. It's not getting "hung up on semantics" when you are trying to decide, are they making an MMO or just trying to cash in on MMO pricing without the MMO. It's been done before.
That's a poor comparison imo considering that Cities XL required a purchase price and a subscription fee. This game is F2P w/ a CS. You do not have to have purchased the original Torchlight or a copy of "Torchlight MMO" in order to play. While I personally am not a fan of F2P, I usually stick to a p2p mmo as my primary game (none I'm into atm though) I don't think this game will be a failure by any means even if you and I never touch it. Because of this I imagine the results will differ from those of Cities XL.
This is great news for me. Torchlight is my current favorite single player and I've been looking forward to the multiplayer version for a long time.
I'm also glad they are making the game soloable as well as having a group mode. I like the idea of having decent rewards no matter if I'm with my family and friends or by myself.
People get hung up on semantics. If Torchlight allows a lot of people on the server at once then it's MMO enough for me. Isn't that why we called them MMOs in the first place? Adding MMO to the title just lets people know they can all log on to the server and meet up. Why does it need to have a more complicated definition?
There was this company that tried this and is gone after trying to tack on a weak multiplayer experience onto an single-player game and then try to get an MMO price for it. Monte Cristo and the game was called Cities XL. Cities XL went down in record time, and Monte Cristo is closed down. It's not getting "hung up on semantics" when you are trying to decide, are they making an MMO or just trying to cash in on MMO pricing without the MMO. It's been done before.
But it's not like this torchlight game is launching a new f2p company, they simply sold the rights to Perfect World Entertainment, so this game is just being injected into an already thriving gaming community.
So weither it's MO or MMO really doesn't matter when it's being made available to an wide already existing audience.
100% agree, but uh, as a free to play title, what does this have to do with Torchlight?
Well let's see. According to F2P supporters, F2P games are just as good as P2P games except with a different pricing model, which means a direct comparision should be used. Are you saying, hey, it's F2P so it will be less quality anyway therefore we shouldn't compare them, and if they do what Monte Cristo did it would be perfectly fine because it's F2P? If that is the case, if we should all lower our standards so F2P games get a pass on pretty much everything they do, please let me know. Otherwise, i am going to hold them to a similar standard as a P2P title. F2P gives them the ability to rake in more money than if they went simply sub, therefore, they are indeed trying to get an MMO price for their work as opposed to a stand-alone, one time box fee title. Which means, they should actually produce an MMO to get an MMO price.
Also, I never said it would be a failure. Then again, no one thought Cities XL would fail either right until pricing info was released and the beta was played.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
I don't think he was indicating a problem with the standard you are holding these games to by comparing them. What I think he was getting at and what you indicate in your post is that it was the pricing model, and more specifically subscriptions that caused Cities XL to fail. Torchlight is operating under a different pricing model therefore I think it will avoid the pitfalls met by Cities XL. Perhaps if Cities XL had been F2P with a CS it would have succeeded as well.
My point has nothing to do with the quality of the game, simply the pricing model. You were comparing it to Cities XL, a game which tacked on some multiplayer and tried to charge monthly for it. Runic is not doing that with Torchlight, even if it is just the singleplayer with multiplayer tacked on, they arent charging a box price, and they arent charging a monthly fee, I dont see them trying to cash in on MMO pricing without the MMO as you put it a few posts up.
As I said I agree with what you said, its the main reason I never gave Hellgate a shot.
Edit: Nephaerius beat me to it.
I don't believe in F2P. It's a marketing gimmick and everyone knows it. If they are using a cash shop, the game will be designed to get players into a cash shop so they can, you know, get paid. Whether it's a subscription model or a cash shop, it should still be an MMO, not some singeplayer game with mutiplayer tacked onto it. If for no other reason than this, the game could be an MMO because the company itself is calling it an MMO. There is a difference between a singplayer game with multiplayer slapepd on top of it and an MMO.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
I don't think he was indicating a problem with the standard you are holding these games to by comparing them. What I think he was getting at and what you indicate in your post is that it was the pricing model, and more specifically subscriptions that caused Cities XL to fail. Torchlight is operating under a different pricing model therefore I think it will avoid the pitfalls met by Cities XL. Perhaps if Cities XL had been F2P with a CS it would have succeeded as well.
Well yes, greed is what caused Cities XL to fail. The problem is, and perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should be, is that greed can manifest itself as easily in a cash shop as it does in a subscription model. I don't know what kind of prices we'll be seeing in a cash shop for Torchlight. I am also not sure they'll have enough meat in the game to actually shift it from a singplayer game to an MMO, which I know is subjective. Those two are large unknowns for me, and concerns because I have seen what people are saying would be great here, a single player game with a multiplayer slapped on it. Cities XL failed in part because fhat multiplayer was half-ass and incomplete, buggy, unsatisfying and too expensive. But they did take a singple player game and slap on a multiplayer, called it an MMO and then charged for it like an MMO. They also took a single-player game, forced players to connect to their server (even singleplayer) and then said give us money for this waek multiplayer thing we have going.
On the positive side, Torchlight was a least a solid game on it's own accord. Cities XL wasn't even that because they stripped out core components of a city builder game from the single-player game to get people to subcribe for basic things like public transporation... AND they had cash shop sort of set-up.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
Bit of mixed info coming from this, article says " hitting store shelves this Thursday" yet up top it says (est.rel 2011), so which is it? :P
The article says that PC Gamer will be hitting store shelves this Thursday. :P
TBH, I don't know why anyone expected more from the Torchlight MMO than an extension of the current engine to enhance and support group play. I thought that was pretty clear from the get go. Now whether it will be lobby or persistent world is what I think matters more - I want something a little less like Warrior Epic when it comes to a persistent MMO feel.
Nonetheless, adding multiplayer to my beloved Torchlight would be awesome; I have the people to play with.
Torchlight was on purpose like new take on Diablo from it's creators,but without the battle.net element. Now it's coming out with new one with a battle.net.
This is great news for me. Torchlight is my current favorite single player and I've been looking forward to the multiplayer version for a long time. I'm also glad they are making the game soloable as well as having a group mode. I like the idea of having decent rewards no matter if I'm with my family and friends or by myself. People get hung up on semantics. If Torchlight allows a lot of people on the server at once then it's MMO enough for me. Isn't that why we called them MMOs in the first place? Adding MMO to the title just lets people know they can all log on to the server and meet up. Why does it need to have a more complicated definition?
I am not so certain how well the Torchlight mmo will fare myself. The solo game came out at a time when there was a gap in the dungeon crawler market. However, with Dungeon Siege 3 and Diablo 3 coming next year I think they will find it harder to be successful. Both DS3 and D3 will offer either co-op and online multi-player gaming, have great graphics and sound judging by their demos, and will have a good RPG story behind them, well definitely DS3 as SE more or less guarantees that, but Blizz too probably have more game plot than D2 for the game. Plus, S3 and D3 will have strong solo games. Factor into that the fact that DS3 is going to consoles as well for sure (and possibly D3) then we are talking a tougher time for indie dungeon crawlers like Torchlight to make an impact.
Even the single player game is mindless short-lived fun, personally I can't sit through it for more than an hour. Hence, I can't think of playing this for months.
Maybe it'll be good for hopping in for a quick dungeon run with a few people once in a while.
Originally posted by Unreal024 I dont know, I just think that if im going to play a 'low quality' game, id rather not be charged monthly and have the option to pay for things I deem worthy of my cash.
And that's why the freeloaders can have all the F2P welfare games they want while I'll stick to a monthly subscription.
They can have their "low quality" games for "free" (LOL), and the rest of us can pay a nice flat rate for quality.
Where the argument comes in is when the freeloaders start crying on forums because they want to play a "great" game, but they want it to be F2P so their welfare asses can play it.
Once a game is announced as F2P, I don't bounce into their forum and demand they make it a subscription game. I just tell 'em "so long, won't see any money from me".
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
Sounds kinda like they're just taking the single player experience and adding multiplayer to it and calling it an MMO. I have my doubts, but I'll reserve judgement till I hear more.
I agree sounds exactly like it, a solo game with a chat box in it. We'll hafta see the game to be sure but it sure quacks that way.
Pretty sad if you just automatically assume that a game must be low quality if its free to play.
Out of all the free to plays ive tried I havnt given a single one any money, none of them were quality.
You see a problem with these two statements?
Torchlight is a pretty quality game at a low price. I mean they never tried to get a high price for it right. They knew they did a quality Diablo clone, and priced it accordingly. Kudos to them for doing that. On the other hand, if it's around a 20-30 dollar (I forget its original price, if it was always about 20) are they going F2P because they want more or expect less than a sub could get them. Numbers show that the F2P can get a company more money, not less. So if they are looking at this game and saying hey, I think we can get more than 15 a month for this, my response to that is for what. I'll use what someone else mentioned already, a singleplayer game with a chat box, some barely there grouping mechanism that isn't necessary because the entire game is solo? No thank you.
It's not about F2P vs P2P, it's trying to figure out the motivation for Mythos choice and then finally have the cash shop revealed to let us all on their little secret. Despite some popular belief that F2P devs just want to give their game away for free, that's not the case. They want to be paid, and I just want to know, how much they are expecting to get out of someone who is actually going to devote time and money to their game and is it worth it.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
Anyone who played Mythos back before the studio collapsed should know what this team is capable of doing for a MMO. Mythos had all of the best aspects of Diablo in a Guild Wars-like setup (persistent town, multiple instances, personal "dungeons," etc). I enjoyed Mythos more than Hellgate and while I look forward to the re-release of Mythos, it was the talent (and personality) of the Mythos dev team that made the game such a pleasure to play.
Comments
I can see that. But even if it simply amounted to a single player game with multiplayer functionality, a Torchlight 2 if you will since none of the original content itself would be rehashed from the first game according to what they've said so far, I think it would be worth my time.
Steam: Neph
Great. I was peeved when Mythos got shelved. If they do something akin to that, I'll be a happy cat.
Which of course, is fine for you. And if that is what you want, and that is what they deliver, that's great. Thing is, when we go after an MMO, it's for the MMO experience, the whole package, not a singleplayer game with a multiplayer tacked onto it. I wouldn't even appreciate that IF it were just sold as a standalone game and not an MMO.
I have so many games I enjoy on a single-player level, so many on a multiplayer level and one maybe two MMOs at any given time holding my interest. Torchlight MMO as described isn't going to satify my singleplayer want as there are richer experiences to be had with less hassles (F2P solo not appealing to me at all), there are games designed for a multiplayer experience from the ground up this Torchlight MMO wouldn't compare real well too and there are MMOs I am hoping that will bring me that MMO flavor that even standalone mulitplayers can't deliver.
I am not seeing their idea match any of these niches real well for me. People who enjoy the F2P experience plus the ability to jump around from F2P game to F2P game because the costs can be nil, especially if you don't stick around, might love this setup. What they plan on offering the rest of us is, well we'll just have to see. It's just not appealing right now to me.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
Agreed.
Steam: Neph
Bit of mixed info coming from this, article says " hitting store shelves this Thursday" yet up top it says (est.rel 2011), so which is it? :P
Either way, I've been wanting to try this since I heard about the mmo version shortly after buying the orignal torchlight, but seeing how PWE will be controlling the cashshop it leaves me with little faith.. they really couldn't have chosen a worse "f2p" company to handle this.
With PWE games it does pay to start as soon as a game is available though, since overtime the cashshop's become more and more important, and the community also inflates market/cashshop prices higher and higher as time goes on, eventually making it impossible to afford good gear and cashshop currency/items with in-game gold.
So to actually have any ammount FREE fun at all you really need to play while a game is still fresh/new, and if you plan on sticking around for awhile, my suggestion is to buy all the cashshop currency you can while it is cheap (with in-game gold), save it for 4-6months, then sell once prices stabilize at around 400k/100ZEN (seems to be the standard leveling off point).
Unfortunatly that is about the only way it's possible to play FREE, stay on par with the cashshop crowds, have a useful character and still be a relevant part of the community..
There was this company that tried this and is gone after trying to tack on a weak multiplayer experience onto an single-player game and then try to get an MMO price for it. Monte Cristo and the game was called Cities XL. Cities XL went down in record time, and Monte Cristo is closed down. It's not getting "hung up on semantics" when you are trying to decide, are they making an MMO or just trying to cash in on MMO pricing without the MMO. It's been done before.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
That's a poor comparison imo considering that Cities XL required a purchase price and a subscription fee. This game is F2P w/ a CS. You do not have to have purchased the original Torchlight or a copy of "Torchlight MMO" in order to play. While I personally am not a fan of F2P, I usually stick to a p2p mmo as my primary game (none I'm into atm though) I don't think this game will be a failure by any means even if you and I never touch it. Because of this I imagine the results will differ from those of Cities XL.
Steam: Neph
But it's not like this torchlight game is launching a new f2p company, they simply sold the rights to Perfect World Entertainment, so this game is just being injected into an already thriving gaming community.
So weither it's MO or MMO really doesn't matter when it's being made available to an wide already existing audience.
Well let's see. According to F2P supporters, F2P games are just as good as P2P games except with a different pricing model, which means a direct comparision should be used. Are you saying, hey, it's F2P so it will be less quality anyway therefore we shouldn't compare them, and if they do what Monte Cristo did it would be perfectly fine because it's F2P? If that is the case, if we should all lower our standards so F2P games get a pass on pretty much everything they do, please let me know. Otherwise, i am going to hold them to a similar standard as a P2P title. F2P gives them the ability to rake in more money than if they went simply sub, therefore, they are indeed trying to get an MMO price for their work as opposed to a stand-alone, one time box fee title. Which means, they should actually produce an MMO to get an MMO price.
Also, I never said it would be a failure. Then again, no one thought Cities XL would fail either right until pricing info was released and the beta was played.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
I don't think he was indicating a problem with the standard you are holding these games to by comparing them. What I think he was getting at and what you indicate in your post is that it was the pricing model, and more specifically subscriptions that caused Cities XL to fail. Torchlight is operating under a different pricing model therefore I think it will avoid the pitfalls met by Cities XL. Perhaps if Cities XL had been F2P with a CS it would have succeeded as well.
Steam: Neph
I don't believe in F2P. It's a marketing gimmick and everyone knows it. If they are using a cash shop, the game will be designed to get players into a cash shop so they can, you know, get paid. Whether it's a subscription model or a cash shop, it should still be an MMO, not some singeplayer game with mutiplayer tacked onto it. If for no other reason than this, the game could be an MMO because the company itself is calling it an MMO. There is a difference between a singplayer game with multiplayer slapepd on top of it and an MMO.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
If it's similar to Dungeon Runners, I may bite... I suppose it depends on character costumization and how bad the item shop is.
I'm free on Friday.
Well yes, greed is what caused Cities XL to fail. The problem is, and perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should be, is that greed can manifest itself as easily in a cash shop as it does in a subscription model. I don't know what kind of prices we'll be seeing in a cash shop for Torchlight. I am also not sure they'll have enough meat in the game to actually shift it from a singplayer game to an MMO, which I know is subjective. Those two are large unknowns for me, and concerns because I have seen what people are saying would be great here, a single player game with a multiplayer slapped on it. Cities XL failed in part because fhat multiplayer was half-ass and incomplete, buggy, unsatisfying and too expensive. But they did take a singple player game and slap on a multiplayer, called it an MMO and then charged for it like an MMO. They also took a single-player game, forced players to connect to their server (even singleplayer) and then said give us money for this waek multiplayer thing we have going.
On the positive side, Torchlight was a least a solid game on it's own accord. Cities XL wasn't even that because they stripped out core components of a city builder game from the single-player game to get people to subcribe for basic things like public transporation... AND they had cash shop sort of set-up.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
The article says that PC Gamer will be hitting store shelves this Thursday. :P
TBH, I don't know why anyone expected more from the Torchlight MMO than an extension of the current engine to enhance and support group play. I thought that was pretty clear from the get go. Now whether it will be lobby or persistent world is what I think matters more - I want something a little less like Warrior Epic when it comes to a persistent MMO feel.
Nonetheless, adding multiplayer to my beloved Torchlight would be awesome; I have the people to play with.
Torchlight was on purpose like new take on Diablo from it's creators,but without the battle.net element. Now it's coming out with new one with a battle.net.
I am not so certain how well the Torchlight mmo will fare myself. The solo game came out at a time when there was a gap in the dungeon crawler market. However, with Dungeon Siege 3 and Diablo 3 coming next year I think they will find it harder to be successful. Both DS3 and D3 will offer either co-op and online multi-player gaming, have great graphics and sound judging by their demos, and will have a good RPG story behind them, well definitely DS3 as SE more or less guarantees that, but Blizz too probably have more game plot than D2 for the game. Plus, S3 and D3 will have strong solo games. Factor into that the fact that DS3 is going to consoles as well for sure (and possibly D3) then we are talking a tougher time for indie dungeon crawlers like Torchlight to make an impact.Even the single player game is mindless short-lived fun, personally I can't sit through it for more than an hour. Hence, I can't think of playing this for months.
Maybe it'll be good for hopping in for a quick dungeon run with a few people once in a while.
And that's why the freeloaders can have all the F2P welfare games they want while I'll stick to a monthly subscription.
They can have their "low quality" games for "free" (LOL), and the rest of us can pay a nice flat rate for quality.
Where the argument comes in is when the freeloaders start crying on forums because they want to play a "great" game, but they want it to be F2P so their welfare asses can play it.
Once a game is announced as F2P, I don't bounce into their forum and demand they make it a subscription game. I just tell 'em "so long, won't see any money from me".
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-
I agree sounds exactly like it, a solo game with a chat box in it. We'll hafta see the game to be sure but it sure quacks that way.
You see a problem with these two statements?
Torchlight is a pretty quality game at a low price. I mean they never tried to get a high price for it right. They knew they did a quality Diablo clone, and priced it accordingly. Kudos to them for doing that. On the other hand, if it's around a 20-30 dollar (I forget its original price, if it was always about 20) are they going F2P because they want more or expect less than a sub could get them. Numbers show that the F2P can get a company more money, not less. So if they are looking at this game and saying hey, I think we can get more than 15 a month for this, my response to that is for what. I'll use what someone else mentioned already, a singleplayer game with a chat box, some barely there grouping mechanism that isn't necessary because the entire game is solo? No thank you.
It's not about F2P vs P2P, it's trying to figure out the motivation for Mythos choice and then finally have the cash shop revealed to let us all on their little secret. Despite some popular belief that F2P devs just want to give their game away for free, that's not the case. They want to be paid, and I just want to know, how much they are expecting to get out of someone who is actually going to devote time and money to their game and is it worth it.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
Anyone who played Mythos back before the studio collapsed should know what this team is capable of doing for a MMO. Mythos had all of the best aspects of Diablo in a Guild Wars-like setup (persistent town, multiple instances, personal "dungeons," etc). I enjoyed Mythos more than Hellgate and while I look forward to the re-release of Mythos, it was the talent (and personality) of the Mythos dev team that made the game such a pleasure to play.