This game is what we call a sandbox. No levels, no classes. Unlike EQNext which has a restrictive class structure.
I can just hope they can deliver on their promises. I could be a very fun game where you have to interact with other players to achieve success.
Rare praise indeed on these forums. I think PFO has potential but also has a long way to go from it's MVP, which it's already come a long way to reach, (budget business plan, crowdfunding endeavour etc).
The combat may not be what a lot of players are looking for these days but those looking for a world with combat in it, perhaps over time, that could gradually be created; but I think it's going to be a slow on-going work in progress to expand. I think EE day 1 combat and hence pvp might be out of the blocks first and fastest, but I hope it does not take too long to get the other roles out there catching up (non-combat) that will get people to see the game as a wide world not another narrow combat simulator.
If people can find useful things to do in multiple roles and directions then it's going to develop into a really interesting mmo-rpg game aka virtual world fantasy rpg mmo.
What this means to me is that following their vision is more important for them than profit maximization which means that they do not have to make sacrifices just to figure out ways how to adjust the game aspects to make them attractive for masses. It is a luxury which traditional triple A developers cannot afford as they are practically obliged to take any measures that may lead to profit maximization.
I think it's actually the opposite, cortex. Ryan has articulated multiple times how the current AAA MMO development model is broken and unprofitable, and that the opportunity space for profit is in sandbox games at this smaller level of development cost. So it's precisely because GW is profit driven that they've adopted this model. Ryan has also pointed out that if you can get a new formula "right," you can create a long-term competitive advantage, e.g. he's pointed to WoW figuring out the innovation of EQ, getting it "right," and owning the market. EVE was innovative, but also deeply flawed, and PFO is an attempt to get EVE-style games "right," and create a long-term marketplace advantage.
Comments
Rare praise indeed on these forums. I think PFO has potential but also has a long way to go from it's MVP, which it's already come a long way to reach, (budget business plan, crowdfunding endeavour etc).
The combat may not be what a lot of players are looking for these days but those looking for a world with combat in it, perhaps over time, that could gradually be created; but I think it's going to be a slow on-going work in progress to expand. I think EE day 1 combat and hence pvp might be out of the blocks first and fastest, but I hope it does not take too long to get the other roles out there catching up (non-combat) that will get people to see the game as a wide world not another narrow combat simulator.
If people can find useful things to do in multiple roles and directions then it's going to develop into a really interesting mmo-rpg game aka virtual world fantasy rpg mmo.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
I think it's actually the opposite, cortex. Ryan has articulated multiple times how the current AAA MMO development model is broken and unprofitable, and that the opportunity space for profit is in sandbox games at this smaller level of development cost. So it's precisely because GW is profit driven that they've adopted this model. Ryan has also pointed out that if you can get a new formula "right," you can create a long-term competitive advantage, e.g. he's pointed to WoW figuring out the innovation of EQ, getting it "right," and owning the market. EVE was innovative, but also deeply flawed, and PFO is an attempt to get EVE-style games "right," and create a long-term marketplace advantage.
Do the RIGHT THING: come be a Paladin with us! http://ozemsvigil.guildlaunch.com/