Hmm, if this game is really going to launch in June, no part of it should still be under NDA at this point, still seems like typical Funcom trying to cover up the flaw that will be there when it goes live.
Definitely waiting until launch to see the full monty before purchasing.
That is the thing that gets me. It just doesn't give a lot of reassurance especially with this company's track record. I think there are more than a few that are doing the same and are rather skeptical with things being kept so hush hush this close to the game's release.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
All I can say is I had an awesoem amount of fun testing this over the weekend a lot more fun than I had in the SWTOR beta and a lot roe fun that i have had in the GW2(jesus2) closed beta..
Thats what counts for me so ill be playing and i know thousands of others will be as well. If you dont like it fair enough... we all like different things.
I did too. I got the same vibe from the game though as with SWTOR that it would probably only be a short term venture for me due to how story focused it is but overall I had a lot of fun with the game. A lot more than I did with SWTOR. Think the setting and the way some of the quests are designed had a lot to do with this.
Gotta say though. Looking through some of these topics there really seem there are going to be some pretentious pricks playing this game that for whatever reason seem to think they're better or smarter than everyone else. Thankfully, it didn't really seem to be an issue over the weekend in game but man...some around here really need a reality check
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Also remember you will hve three character slots you will probally end up rolling 1 of each faction so you want have to play through all the same starter quests.. there is no realy need to roll mutliple themplat characters as your free to do what you want skill wise with every character.
Selling 2.4 million copies in 6 months? 1.3 million subscribers after 6 months? I'm pretty sure they'd be celebrating by driving around in cars made out of glued together money.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Selling 2.4 million copies in 6 months? 1.3 million subscribers after 6 months? I'm pretty sure they'd be celebrating by driving around in cars made out of glued together money.
No that actually is NOT how they want to be like SWTOR...
That even with a lie they still lost far more than the norm...1.3 out of 2.4 is a very low retention rate and when seeing that the 1.3 also includes those that canceled but are active with the 30 free day offer is a bad sign...however, Funcom will lie through their teeth about subs just like EA so...yeah, how cant they end up like SWTOR?
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Originally posted by lizardbones Selling 2.4 million copies in 6 months? 1.3 million subscribers after 6 months? I'm pretty sure they'd be celebrating by driving around in cars made out of glued together money.
A nice story until you realize they need a return of investment and until that day it's more likely EA bosses will be driving around in cars made out of glued together bioware employees, drinking their coffee and eating their turkey.
I think the OP’s point is that SWTOR started big but slowly faded from public consciousness due to more exciting and groundbreaking future mmos, and is losing subs due to a lack of innovation in many game play elements, low replayability for alts, and bad endgame. There is also an overemphasis on single player cut scenes and story. It’s not the perpetual social motion machine an mmo is supposed to me.
Now, where I think TSW will not replicate this pattern of decline is due to the cut scenes being less obtrusive, and the story being more a product of clues and components of the PVE world itself. There is more reason to come back to the open world zones, you don’t out lvl areas the same way you do in most other mmos, there is much less instancing, so the mmo aspect feels stronger.
The community is, so far, more mature and positive, as there are understandably many questions to ask in general chat, most get into the spirit of things and play along by answering with clues, not spoilers. Also, many missions and mob areas are better in groups, though it isn’t forced.
Then there is “endgame” which in TSW doesn’t exist, except in the sense that you will run out of current story content. That is only half of the game’s emphasis, the other half, faction rivalry, can take over, and it will feel far more natural a transition than SWTOR’s endgame. You will still have a lot of skill wheel experimentation to keep a constant sense of progression for longer, and as the pvp is 1v1v1, it has far more possibilities, for matches and for server balance.
Dungeons can also benefit from skill wheel experimentation, so they too should more naturally feel part of the progression, though it’s the least important part of the game for me. PVP will be the deciding factor for sub numbers in the long run. Though it will also be easier for the Devs to add more PVE content due to cheaper cut-scenes, (no player character to re-dub), and cheap to make investigation/stealth missions. They already have such content planned.
In conclusion, I think it is a mistake to take the story and cut-scenes of TSW as enough similarities with SWTOR to assume similar results, there are many other differences. The deciding factor is whether these innovations/throwbacks will drive people away, or draw a niche audience in, and keep them, as games like EVE managed to, due to lack of obvious alternatives.
I guess too that people will eventually finish all quests and it's an unrealistic wish that they can upkeep new content for those who play 3+h on a regular basis (in particular the more complex investigation missions). However I think one key advantage of the game is that it isn't quite that much about 'leveling' and hopefully quests you skipped the first time you visited a zone aren't completly boring and trivial if you should revist that area at a later stage (I couldn't get myself to do the side-quests in swtor if it would only involve one-shooting mobs).
It seems as well that it might be able to have players play together even if they haven't the same amount of time they can invest into the game - a more 'hardcore' player might have gear for many different builds - his friend who might have only gear and skills for two builds and it seems that this will still allow them to enjoy content that is challanging for both of them.
I really do hope the impact of gear isn't that strong (in particular with regards to pvp).
I played Anarchy Online for many years, i know Funcom and i have to agree.
Either this game goes B2P like GW2 or it will fail, the game is fine i enjoyed playing it but it isnt enough for Subs, in my opinion the fans will pay ofc but it will be just that after the first free month, just fans playing and the world will feel empty and more empty each day.
Subscription days are gone, B2P is the way to go these days imho.
Originally posted by Asamighost I played Anarchy Online for many years, i know Funcom and i have to agree. Either this game goes B2P like GW2 or it will fail, the game is fine i enjoyed playing it but it isnt enough for Subs, in my opinion the fans will pay ofc but it will be just that after the first free month, just fans playing and the world will feel empty and more empty each day. Subscription days are gone, B2P is the way to go these days imho.
I agree, but not for the same reasons. I just don't want to spend money on a subscription for a game. Any game really.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Its new, different, refreshing, original, fun, and there are no Elves!
not sure why people keep saying this one.. did you not notice the EA intro when starting the weekend beta?
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
It's really pretty amazing at the foresite the FC team had for a production that started 6 years ago. Swtor on the other had released a game that was 3 years old on launch..
TOR was designed around the expectation that subscribers would roll numerous alts to play through the game multiple times and build up their legacy.
TSW appears to be designed with the idea that any one character can do effectively anything and everything eventually, so there is no need to roll alts other than to determine which faction you want your character aligned with. You cabal (guild) and group play is supposedly not even going to be based on faction, so playing with your friends does not have a lot of bearing on your faction choice outside of possibly pvp, your "home base," and some limited story elements.
So they are different in that respect.
They are similar -- to me -- in the sense that the areas exist for the sake of playing out the story. Once you've played through the area it is for all intents and purposes removed from the game. To me, from the very limited amount we've seen, although the areas might be realisitc, they don't necessarily give the sense of existing outside of being a place you're sent to do quests. Like TOR, there's no world pvp, and unlike TOR there appears to be no impetus for it to even exist.
The most crucial similarity -- for me personally -- is the feeling that once I'm done with the story that's all there really is. There might be raids and organized pvp to take part in to acquire some items, but I couldn't really be arsed to care. I felt no attachment to my character, and I felt like I wasn't working toward anything meaningful for my character himself. He was merely the vehicle through which TSW delivered the story to me.
Anyhow, I think the modern setting and RW weapons will appeal to players who don't care for sci-fi and Medieval fantasy, so in that sense I think TSW makes up some ground on TOR being Star Wars.
Its new, different, refreshing, original, fun, and there are no Elves!
All new games are new.
All games are different in the way they present old ideas
All new games are refreshing until it no longer is
It is not original, not a single thing in it is an original idea...
fun is based on perspective
there are no elves in SWTOR either...it didnt make a difference.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
What are you basing your prediction on? The stress test this past weekend?
probably mostly that its a story based game for the most part and story based isn't the best for longevity... just a guess
All MMORPG's are story based.
you know what I mean.. only SWTOR and now TSW has made their center focus the story.. most MMOs its not the main "feature" if you will or selling point of the game
For SWTOR, is was just store, and only store.
For TSW, its not the store, its the mystery.
One must realy work to get to the end of a good mystery, and thinking ont side the mmo box is something that will need to be done.
When and what was the last MMORPG that made any of us realy think, does anyone remember?
(if your answer is: World of Warcraft, you may not want to play TSW)
Most will not get this, they look at an MMO and want to see the end game,
in my view, that is a pitiful, it should be the trip not the destination for a MMORPG, EQ understood that, now most do not.
Not everyone will play, that is a realy good thing, and we all know why.
Comments
That is the thing that gets me. It just doesn't give a lot of reassurance especially with this company's track record. I think there are more than a few that are doing the same and are rather skeptical with things being kept so hush hush this close to the game's release.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
I did too. I got the same vibe from the game though as with SWTOR that it would probably only be a short term venture for me due to how story focused it is but overall I had a lot of fun with the game. A lot more than I did with SWTOR. Think the setting and the way some of the quests are designed had a lot to do with this.
Gotta say though. Looking through some of these topics there really seem there are going to be some pretentious pricks playing this game that for whatever reason seem to think they're better or smarter than everyone else. Thankfully, it didn't really seem to be an issue over the weekend in game but man...some around here really need a reality check
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Also remember you will hve three character slots you will probally end up rolling 1 of each faction so you want have to play through all the same starter quests.. there is no realy need to roll mutliple themplat characters as your free to do what you want skill wise with every character.
Selling 2.4 million copies in 6 months? 1.3 million subscribers after 6 months? I'm pretty sure they'd be celebrating by driving around in cars made out of glued together money.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
No that actually is NOT how they want to be like SWTOR...
That even with a lie they still lost far more than the norm...1.3 out of 2.4 is a very low retention rate and when seeing that the 1.3 also includes those that canceled but are active with the 30 free day offer is a bad sign...however, Funcom will lie through their teeth about subs just like EA so...yeah, how cant they end up like SWTOR?
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Because the game requires an IQ above 50 to play and solve the quests on your own!
Listen ive been playing a while, this is no swtor. I played that closed beta and cancelled my preorder. TSW's cb caused me to buy lifetime.
A nice story until you realize they need a return of investment and until that day it's more likely EA bosses will be driving around in cars made out of glued together bioware employees, drinking their coffee and eating their turkey.
I think the OP’s point is that SWTOR started big but slowly faded from public consciousness due to more exciting and groundbreaking future mmos, and is losing subs due to a lack of innovation in many game play elements, low replayability for alts, and bad endgame. There is also an overemphasis on single player cut scenes and story. It’s not the perpetual social motion machine an mmo is supposed to me.
Now, where I think TSW will not replicate this pattern of decline is due to the cut scenes being less obtrusive, and the story being more a product of clues and components of the PVE world itself. There is more reason to come back to the open world zones, you don’t out lvl areas the same way you do in most other mmos, there is much less instancing, so the mmo aspect feels stronger.
The community is, so far, more mature and positive, as there are understandably many questions to ask in general chat, most get into the spirit of things and play along by answering with clues, not spoilers. Also, many missions and mob areas are better in groups, though it isn’t forced.
Then there is “endgame” which in TSW doesn’t exist, except in the sense that you will run out of current story content. That is only half of the game’s emphasis, the other half, faction rivalry, can take over, and it will feel far more natural a transition than SWTOR’s endgame. You will still have a lot of skill wheel experimentation to keep a constant sense of progression for longer, and as the pvp is 1v1v1, it has far more possibilities, for matches and for server balance.
Dungeons can also benefit from skill wheel experimentation, so they too should more naturally feel part of the progression, though it’s the least important part of the game for me. PVP will be the deciding factor for sub numbers in the long run. Though it will also be easier for the Devs to add more PVE content due to cheaper cut-scenes, (no player character to re-dub), and cheap to make investigation/stealth missions. They already have such content planned.
In conclusion, I think it is a mistake to take the story and cut-scenes of TSW as enough similarities with SWTOR to assume similar results, there are many other differences. The deciding factor is whether these innovations/throwbacks will drive people away, or draw a niche audience in, and keep them, as games like EVE managed to, due to lack of obvious alternatives.
I guess too that people will eventually finish all quests and it's an unrealistic wish that they can upkeep new content for those who play 3+h on a regular basis (in particular the more complex investigation missions). However I think one key advantage of the game is that it isn't quite that much about 'leveling' and hopefully quests you skipped the first time you visited a zone aren't completly boring and trivial if you should revist that area at a later stage (I couldn't get myself to do the side-quests in swtor if it would only involve one-shooting mobs).
It seems as well that it might be able to have players play together even if they haven't the same amount of time they can invest into the game - a more 'hardcore' player might have gear for many different builds - his friend who might have only gear and skills for two builds and it seems that this will still allow them to enjoy content that is challanging for both of them.
I really do hope the impact of gear isn't that strong (in particular with regards to pvp).
I played Anarchy Online for many years, i know Funcom and i have to agree.
Either this game goes B2P like GW2 or it will fail, the game is fine i enjoyed playing it but it isnt enough for Subs, in my opinion the fans will pay ofc but it will be just that after the first free month, just fans playing and the world will feel empty and more empty each day.
Subscription days are gone, B2P is the way to go these days imho.
I agree, but not for the same reasons. I just don't want to spend money on a subscription for a game. Any game really.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Not published by EA.
Not made by Bioware.
Not a WoW clone or any other type of MMO clone.
Its new, different, refreshing, original, fun, and there are no Elves!
not sure why people keep saying this one.. did you not notice the EA intro when starting the weekend beta?
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
TSW doesn't have 31 point talent trees...
It's really pretty amazing at the foresite the FC team had for a production that started 6 years ago. Swtor on the other had released a game that was 3 years old on launch..
I don't know how you guys are missing EA as co-publisher. If you play beta the EA logo is the first thing you see, even before the Funcom one.
edit:Aroewyn beat me to this
People don't keep saying that. I think he ment it was not owned by EA.
EA is amazing at shipping boxes though.
I hope that this year all PCs and MACs will vanish and will be replaced with Commodore 64s with casset decks and 5`25`` floppy drives.
World of games will be a happy place again
TOR was designed around the expectation that subscribers would roll numerous alts to play through the game multiple times and build up their legacy.
TSW appears to be designed with the idea that any one character can do effectively anything and everything eventually, so there is no need to roll alts other than to determine which faction you want your character aligned with. You cabal (guild) and group play is supposedly not even going to be based on faction, so playing with your friends does not have a lot of bearing on your faction choice outside of possibly pvp, your "home base," and some limited story elements.
So they are different in that respect.
They are similar -- to me -- in the sense that the areas exist for the sake of playing out the story. Once you've played through the area it is for all intents and purposes removed from the game. To me, from the very limited amount we've seen, although the areas might be realisitc, they don't necessarily give the sense of existing outside of being a place you're sent to do quests. Like TOR, there's no world pvp, and unlike TOR there appears to be no impetus for it to even exist.
The most crucial similarity -- for me personally -- is the feeling that once I'm done with the story that's all there really is. There might be raids and organized pvp to take part in to acquire some items, but I couldn't really be arsed to care. I felt no attachment to my character, and I felt like I wasn't working toward anything meaningful for my character himself. He was merely the vehicle through which TSW delivered the story to me.
Anyhow, I think the modern setting and RW weapons will appeal to players who don't care for sci-fi and Medieval fantasy, so in that sense I think TSW makes up some ground on TOR being Star Wars.
All new games are new.
All games are different in the way they present old ideas
All new games are refreshing until it no longer is
It is not original, not a single thing in it is an original idea...
fun is based on perspective
there are no elves in SWTOR either...it didnt make a difference.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
For SWTOR, is was just store, and only store.
For TSW, its not the store, its the mystery.
One must realy work to get to the end of a good mystery, and thinking ont side the mmo box is something that will need to be done.
When and what was the last MMORPG that made any of us realy think, does anyone remember?
(if your answer is: World of Warcraft, you may not want to play TSW)
Most will not get this, they look at an MMO and want to see the end game,
in my view, that is a pitiful, it should be the trip not the destination for a MMORPG, EQ understood that, now most do not.
Not everyone will play, that is a realy good thing, and we all know why.
It will do well.